Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

comingfrom wrote. E/M is photons. The photons are not diminished, on this we agree. The spins are cancelled (for attraction) and stacked (for repulsion), and the cancelling or adding of the spin component, you are simply adding or subtracting to the linear component of field.In my mind, removing the orthogonal vector (the spins) from the field still leaves the linear vector.Airman. Agreed. All photons emitted by any matter are described by both linear (electric) and spin (magnetic) motions. Magnets have coherent spin emissions. I’m not real clear on what coherent means, but I don’t see any problems accepting various spin orientation and phase combinations in thinking about it. Miles gives an “oversimplified” example in the Magnetism paper; I interpret it (his use of the word “oversimplified”) to the fact we understand that one doesn’t just add orthogonal vectors directly. Nevertheless, addition or cancellation of the spin components causes a huge change in the repulsive strength of the charge field between the magnets. It seems true that the linear, electric components are unaffected.

Airman wrote. Gaining or losing magnetism (through heat or contact with a permanent magnet) doesn’t necessarily imply reorienting atoms. If magnetic solids such as iron were so malleable, I would think they would quickly disintegrate. Imo, stroking a nail with a magnet changes the aggregate photon charge channel flow paths through the nail, not the physical positions of the atoms.

comingfrom wrote. You are saying there is a total amount of magnetic charge held in store, in a magnet.Airman. I think I’m saying there’s a relative constant amount of nuclear charge recycling capacity. The presence of magnetism increases the net field strength and recycling rate over non-magnetic conditions, reflecting a higher energy state. We may be able to change, to some extent, the internal distribution of the nuclear charge flow. To make a silly analogy, your magnetism is improved by combing your hair. Rubbing a nail with a magnet causes a reordering, a redistribution of the photon charge flows within the nail, while under an increased energy field (contact with the magnet), changing a less ordered domain constrained pattern into a more coherent charge channel current flow distribution pattern. Whew.

comingfrom wrote. But it leads me to this question: Why don't electromagnets stay magnetic when the charge is switched off?Airman. You only think they might, due to the residual magnetism of iron. Copper is simply non-magnetic in normal ambient conditions, meaning copper emissions are linear with less predictable spin directions or no discernable spin-coherency. Any driving voltage will increase E/M energy above the surrounding ambient levels at which time magnetism is detected. I may not have a proper answer, the question doesn’t seem as unanswerable as it was over a hundred years ago.

comingfrom wrote. And can you explain why iron is attracted to both poles of a magnet?Airman. No, I suppose I can’t. I’ll start rationalizing. Iron is a perfect conduit of magnetism. That may be due to the fact that Iron is so perfectly balanced. No matter what azimuthal directions iron’s photons are emitted, they have traveled through the atom the same phase length.

Airman wrote. I’m not sure if you are satisfied with argument for or against. Solo gravity just causes an acceleration. I don’t believe magnets are held together by solo gravity, instead, the charge channels of the two magnets are joined

comingfrom wrote. You are trying to make an argument for solo-gravity being the force of attraction between magnets, but you don't believe it?

You must mean, once the magnets are in contact, then the charge channeling takes over and gravity between the magnets disappears (because the magnets have become one body). Yes?Airman. Correct. Solo gravity is the source of the apparent attraction. I believe the magnetic bond exceeds the acceleration of solo gravity alone. It takes additional force to separate the magnets.

I actually like the explanation there, it seems to be a good explanation of why the magnetic elements are magnetic, and of how the magnet field is produced.

It doesn't explain for me why these elements process a magnetic field differently to the ambient field.It is the magnetic elements' response to magnetic fields that is left out of the explanation, imo.Gravity is given for the explanation why magnets come together, but these elements will respond to magnetic fields when in a plasma too. Airman. Miles doesn’t tell us everything. Too bad. Still, you must admit he left a pile of tools and clues to approach the problem. A charge field easter egg hunt, makes me feel like a kid again.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Turbines

comingfrom wrote. The iron atom works somewhat like a turbine, that will propel itself in a spin cohered field.Airman. Ok. Here’s an image of an iron atom (at the bottom of this post) as Mathis describes it and Nevyn simulates it at http://www.nevyns-lab.com/ . It’s clearer in motion. The green spheres are neutrons. The red spheres are protons. The blue and grey discs are proton equatorial emission planes; protons spin at c, most photons will be emitted along the proton equator, so maximum repulsion is felt in those emission planes. There are little electrons - yellow – too small to distinguish easily here, and photons are included as grey dots, a fuzzy appearance. The bright white lines are the main nuclear charge channels. Spacing is guesswork.

The atomic image of Iron appears at the bottom of this post. No joy bringing it here. Check the Atomic Viewer at Neveyns Lab for a much better view.

The atom is aligned to the charge field. The main vertical column is in line with the Earth’s upward emission field, thereby maximizing charge intake and throughput efficiency. The image may be a bit confusing or blurry, still one can see, Iron is finely balanced: the main column, 6 protons above, configured the same as the 6 protons below; four identical horizontal arms. I have no doubt the iron atom spins as it is propelled through space. How does that change in a spin-cohered field?

comingfrom wrote. Even a single proton acts as a turbine, cycling and recycling charge. I was looking at the animations of a photon spun up (at the forum you linked above), and could see the "turbine blades" (shape) formed by the photon path. If put on an outer axial spin, then those turbine blades are spinning around, enabling it to suck non spun up photons in through its poles.

Airman. I think you’re referring to a stacked spin, but I have no idea which. Instead, here’s another proton by Nevyn, also aligned with a vertical emission field, thus creating its horizontal emission plane. Like iron, hydrogen can receive photons from all directions, and redirects them into the proton’s own emission plane. Here we clearly see spin-coherent equatorial photon emissions. The proton itself is probably a perfect magnet. This image is shown in motion at Nevyns Lab.

comingfrom wrote. Turbo protons and electrons may also explain the way they move in electric fields, rather than the simple direct bombardment model, which would send both in same direction. But we know they go in opposite directions. The electron's spins causes it to processes charge photons oppositely to how protons do, whereby they propel themselves in opposite directions in the field.Airman. Equal and opposite reactions between electrons and protons require closer study. Too many unknowns. From above we now know that a strong magnetic field yields two E/M results, 1) strictly linear, magnetic components cancelled; or 2) linear plus 2x magnetic component. Also I’m convinced there are always two-way, contra, charge and anti-charge flows. How do they contribute?

Airman wrote. Will they follow magnetic field lines?

comingfrom wrote. The field lines are the direction of force in the field, and yes, they follow the direction of forces in the field.

comingfrom wrote. I'm talking about inside of electrons and protons, when the photons which are being cycled collide with the spun up photon that is the electron or proton. Or maybe they only collide with the photons which are being recycled.

Airman. Whoa comingfrom! Talking about the inside of a charged particle! That’s new territory. I’ll try to keep up.

comingfrom wrote. The exact details of how energy is transmitted from photon field to baryon, and vica versa, isn't yet clear in my mind.Since the baryons are recycling photons, I don't see the acceleration of particles in a field as being caused by simple straight bombardment. Though I believe there is collision contact, for energy to be transferred.Airman. I don’t believe the exact details are clear to anyone yet. Photons and anti-photons from all exposed directions can collide with the baryon, keeping its energy high. The baryon would react to that ambient photon intake with a resultant average velocity and spin speed. Coherent Spins present in a magnetic field result in coherent receipt of that energy, increasing the baryon’s own spin speed without necessarily affecting the baryon’s linear velocity. Two different result velocities and spin rates.

The baryon dumps energy by emitting photons. How is the energy balance maintained? Is there an E/M balance change between photons emitted in either magnetic or nonmagnetic fields? Protons receiving maximum spin boosts from the field must recycle photons at an increased rate.

comingfrom wrote. I believe the rotation of celestial bodies is maintained by the photon field, and that the energy transfer is happening inside the atoms of the suns and planets.Airman. Welcome to the heavenly choir.

Just to add this too... keep in mind "nano-magnets". These apparently will prove or disprove quite a bit with Mathis' explanation of magnetism. This is a relatively young field with many recent discoveries:

The ferrous cube complex Fe4C40H52N4O12 (commonly called [Fe4(sae)4(MeOH)4]) was the first example of a single-molecule magnet involving an Fe(II) cluster, and the core of this complex is a slightly distorted cube with Fe and O atoms on alternating corners.[11] Remarkably, this single molecule magnet exhibits non-collinear magnetism in which the atomic spin moments of the four Fe atoms point in opposite directions along two nearly perpendicular axes.[12] Theoretical computations showed approximately two magnetic electrons are localized on each Fe atom with the other atoms being nearly nonmagnetic, and the spin-orbit coupling potential energy surface has three local energy minima with a magnetic anisotropy barrier just below 3 meV.[13]

Small and powerful: Pushing the boundaries of nano-magnetsDate: May 6, 2016Source: Department of Energy, Office of ScienceSummary: Researchers built extremely small, thermally stable magnetic particles with magnetic properties comparable to some rare earth magnets, the strongest permanent magnets ever created. These tiny magnets are as small as 5 nanometers, a million times smaller than an ant. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132528.htm

Scientists are hopeful that they can find ways of moving these materials in and out of the Mott insulating state, which would be useful in developing new kinds of functional devices. It's also been shown that by introducing impurities into their structure, some Mott insulators become high-temperature superconductors—materials that can conduct electricity without resistance at temperatures well above those normally required for superconductivity.

Despite the promise of these materials, scientists still don't fully understand how they work. A full description of electron states in these materials has been elusive. On the most fundamental level, each individual electron is characterized by its charge and spin, its tiny magnetic moment that points either up or down. It's difficult to predict electron properties in Mott insulators because the states of electrons are so closely correlated with each other—the state of one electron influences the states of its neighbors.

My apologies to Airman, and those following this thread. Thanks for your replies.I was up to this thread, and trying to resolve the theory of magnetism, when life dropped a little bombshell on me and caused me to be offline for a while.I also seemed to be at a headway, making no progress in building my understanding of the magnetic field.

Anyhow, life crisis has settled down now (I hope) and I'm back. I hope to find the time to go through the above replies with my fine toothed comb.Meanwhile, without looking for it, I found this youtube video of interest to the topic.The interesting thing for me was seeing the equatorial disc through the magnetic field viewer.(Why is this not shown in magnetic field diagrams? )This is a whole new fact for me, which I now have to try to incorporate in my modelling.At about 4m10s in (if you want to jump to it).

.Life always comes first, comingfrom, no apologies necessary. I shared in the revelation of your last post. The narrator intended to shown a mainstream magnetic field discrepancy. He favors Russell's magnetic theories, but I'll try to describe his finding from a charge field perspective.

The narrator is holding a toroidal ring magnet behind magnetic sensitive film. The dimensions are a bit obscured, the magnet appears to be a degree or two off, almost horizontal. We are directed to observe that there is a horizontally oriented equatorial ring around the magnet, sure enough, there it is. I added the overlay to show the magnet with an equatorial ring which appears to divide the magnet into north and south.

comingfrom wrote. (Why is this not shown in magnetic field diagrams? )

Airman. I said the same thing when I saw gas vortices being emitted from electrified underwater magnets. As they say – if you haven’t seen it, google it.

Most people think magnets can only attract steel, the narrator spends time showing otherwise. A paperclip sized wire is repelled by the equator while in the equatorial plane. The paperclip may be attracted to the side of the magnet only if it is held in a roughly vertical line (parallel to the magnets axis, N or S, up and down within the page as in this image). If the paperclip is held horizontally (east or west) above and along the equator, the paperclip is repelled.

This overlay shows a cross section of the magnet’s charge emission fields. Assuming north is up, the red ellipses are the side view of a red torus. Photon emissions outward from the magnet from within the red torus are counter-clockwise, the north pole. Photon emissions from the magnet within the blue torus are clockwise, anti-charge, the magnet’s south pole.

Incoming charge is not shown in this image: we do not see the blue anti-photons moving down into the north-pole of the magnet through the hole in the red torus; nor do we see red photons entering the south-pole from below.

The ring of interest forms where photons and anti-photons are emitted side-by-side, directly out from the equator. Spins either cancel or mesh, when photons and anti-photons travel alongside each other like this, there is no spin differential. Their spins mesh, and their repulsions are added. .

In spite of my criticisms above, I am still reading Mathis.So much of his stuff is good.Even if you don't concur with his theories, his papers are worth the read just to see how he exposes the mainstream theories for what they are.But I believe he is on the right track with his charge field, even if he still gets some things wrong.

And that is the reason for this post.Today I was reading his paper NASA's Lunar Gravity Maps, where he analyzes NASA's report of the GRAIL data.I think I found a real big blooper.(I'm hoping someone can tell me I am missing something.)He shows a match between the data and his charge field, only thing is, from what I have learned in all his other papers, the charge field is in opposition vector to gravity, so gravity should be reduced where the charge field is greatest. It seems like the data is such a good match to his charge theory, that he overlooked the fact that it is gravity shown, and not charge.

"Why would the Moon have huge low gravity areas near the south pole, and lesser ones at the north pole? Why would it have high gravity areas all across the equator?"

If charge is the cause of these gravity anomalies, it has to be going the opposite way to what he shows in his diagram of charge coming in the poles and emanating (mostly) from the equator. The arrows are going with gravity at the poles, and against gravity near the equator.

And maybe I am missing something here...Earlier in the paper he says of charge, "As it moves out, it can be blocked more or less by more or less dense areas on the surface."Charge can be blocked by denser material?In his papers on the unified field, charge is directly proportional to density, while gravity is directly proportional to volume. He ingrained in me that more density = more charge. Quite simply, more density means more atoms recycling charge. A denser region, containing more atoms, should therefore pull in more charge (from the center of the moon, and which came in through the poles), and emit more charge (in the direction away from the moon).

comingfrom wrote:And maybe I am missing something here...Earlier in the paper he says of charge, "As it moves out, it can be blocked more or less by more or less dense areas on the surface."Charge can be blocked by denser material?

Indeed denser material blocks charge. So when you have the equator where most charge comes out, any density variation (on the surface) will show up (in these gravity maps), more dense> more gravity; less dense > less gravity. You see? It is only surface variations you see, despite the total field...

Are you are saying a denser region will act like a resistor in the circuit?In his earlier uft papers, denser objects emit more charge.So I think, why not also the denser regions of an object?

And here is another point, wouldn't the conductivity of the material also be a variable factor for charge emission?The denser material probably contains more metals, and should (or could?) be more conductive.

I do understand, and agree, what you mean about they are only mapping surface variability. That appears obvious just by looking at it, because you can see how gravity variations correspond to surface cratering.Even caused the NASA agent to speculate that some of the variation is caused by the craters.

Are you are saying a denser region will act like a resistor in the circuit?In his earlier uft papers, denser objects emit more charge.So I think, why not also the denser regions of an object?Paul

A denser region will act to block charge. I don't know if this makes it act like a resistor (locally or in a local circuit, but likely possible, a pyramid would be an example of that), i would also say an entire planet is a resistor already.

In his early uft papers he linked density to the charge field, and gravity to volume (or radius) only. I do not think he said that denser objects emit more charge, just that the charge field is linked to density and thus only to real physical matter, total matter of an object matters.

And here is another point, wouldn't the conductivity of the material also be a variable factor for charge emission?The denser material probably contains more metals, and should (or could?) be more conductive.

More charge emission is a matter of nuclear structure, i do not think density matters that much, you have to know the atomic structure in order to be able to say anything about how much charge or not it will emit.

I visit many megalithic sites to check on our ancestors knowledge of how to manipulate these forces locally by altering local ground levels ( henges and so called hillforts) and by using massive stones of variant compositions.

So, a dense metallic moon would conduct more charge than a hollow or porous rock (less dense) moon?Or would it block the charge?

You are confirming what I said while disagreeing with me.

But densities aside, look at Mathis' charge vectors at 30 degrees N and S of the equator.They are in vector opposition to gravity there, regardless of the densities.That means gravity aught to be weakened around the equator.The charge coming in the poles is working in the same direction as gravity.That means gravity aught to be strengthened near the poles.That is opposite to the data.

Or am I having a moment...? like when all the craters look instead like domes, and no matter what, you can't get them to look like craters again.

The rivers and streams are of consciousness ( plasma, aether yin/yang) and are invisible, they flow both up and down the hillsides, always reacting to the path of least resistance.

I am certain there is no force called gravity, it is a net difference between the streams of implosion over outrush, and is therefore variant relative to resistances imparted.those resistances will be in the fine detailing of the geologies involved, TT Brown spent years in submarines with Vening Meineszr checking the variations at the bottom of the deep blue seas.